Talk:Apple community

stub?

Does this really qualify as a stub? It seem pretty complete to me. Whoever did it, did a good job — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.54.132.52 (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

page rename?

I think this page should be called "Apple rumors community."

Since Apple's business today is about so much more than the Mac, and the rumors sites often devote more time to software/iPod/other hardware projects than they do to the Mac specifically. Rumoring isn't about the Mac anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staecker (talk • contribs) 17:53, 1 July 2005 (UTC)

Citations needed

This page is flirting with WP:NOR. It makes some specific proclamations about events and stances that really need citations. Properly-sourced links to the rumour sites themselves will probably do. Warrens 15:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

iPhone Nano

shouldn't this be there? 132.205.44.5 21:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

9to5mac

Shouldn't there be something written about this site? --Cwinnipeg 18:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Does a subject like this belong in Wikipedia? Does it really meet guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability and WP:NOT? Jason McHuff 08:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ars

What About Ars? MatthieuV (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

They aren't generally a rumor site but they should be discussed somewhere Eraserhead1 (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

macforum.com

I have become involved in a nascent edit war over the addition of macforum.com to the external links section of the article. I believe that it should not be included, as the site consists only of discussion forums, was apparently created less than three weeks ago, has only 30 registered members, and 254 of the site's 265 posts have been made by site administrators. Additionally, the IP used here to make the additions and the site's whois registration also suggest that this is site promotion spam. Sites mentioned in this article should be limited to those that have (or had at some point) significant impact on the rumors community, not brand new sites attempting to create traffic for themselves. I would appreciate the input of additional editors on this question...thanks. WildCowboy (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with WildCowboy's views. macforum.com appears to be a site with little to no relevence. It in no means should be listed in an article such as this when competing with sites such as MacRumors which has nearly 160000 registered members.Spanky Deluxe (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reduced the number of links to the 6 most important sites Eraserhead1 (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-did layout

I've redone the layout to make the content more relevant. The main sites now have their own pages.

Eraserhead1 (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Apple Cafe

An anonymous user or users have added a link to Apple Cafe in the "Other Sites" section of this article. I assert that this site does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability under WP:WEB. The site has been in existence for only a few weeks, has only a handful of content, and has apparently had only a few dozen visitors since its inception. The addition of this site here appears to be self-promotion, which is not permitted under WP:SOAP. If someone wishes to assert notability for the site, please provide a rationale here before re-adding. Thanks. WildCowboy (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved

Rumors are only a fraction of the issues most of the Apple community sites deal with. Article should be broadened slightly to reflect this, and by adding a fuller list of Apple community sites. --Jimthing (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Article Scope & Organization

I added a link to Macworld, but there are other print magazines that are part of the Apple community. The list could be divided into print magazines (which in general should have their own Wikipedia articles) and sites that are only websites or blogs without a print component. The entire list needs to be organized as well, perhaps by prominence, web traffic, or at least alphabetically. I'll work on this article as time permits. – Mark K Adams (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Soapbox

In case editors are overlooking the edit summaries: Seems to me that these examples and other promotional material simply don't belong per WP:NOT. Without independent sources, it's an NPOV violation as well.

(Granted, the editing by 31.185.197.136 (talk · contribs) and 87.112.71.198 (talk · contribs), has something to do with TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs)) --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why 87.112.71.198 self-reverted, but does anyone have policy-based concerns about reverting ClueBot NG's edit? --Ronz (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Apple community. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070403082824/http://www.macscoop.com:80/articles/2006/09/20/no-more-confusion-introducing-macscoop to http://www.macscoop.com/articles/2006/09/20/no-more-confusion-introducing-macscoop

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Social Media Communities

In the section @Shickde: added, as of 05:01, 26 May 2017 UTC (diff), there's only one source throughout the section. I'm concerned that those content may not meet WP:V, please discuss here before adding back the section or make further edits on the same topic per WP:BRD.

In the first paragraph, "various Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook pages are used to bring simple, beautiful, and quick-to-read news," it's clearly one's opinion, which violates WP:NPOV. The rest of the paragraph is also unsourced.

In the second paragraph about "Apple Hub", the source, which is an Instagram post by Apple Hub itself, verifies that Apple Hub started as "All About Apple 2014", and is okay to use per WP:ABOUTSELF. Regarding it as "the most popular and growing news page in the Instagram Apple community" is clearly one's opinion and does not adhere a neutral point of view, which violates WP:NPOV. Growth of followers is unsourced. Social media links to the page should generally be avoided per WP:ELNO.

In the paragraph about Team Apple News, its former name and removal by Instagram are unsourced. Links to the organization's pages on social media should be avoided per WP:ELNO. Referring it as a "talented group" is clearly not written in a neutral point of view, which violates WP:NPOV. Rest of the paragraph is unsourced.

In the paragraph about Ascending News, the page's goal, activeness and popularity are unsourced. Same for Apple Dsign.

In the paragraph about Apple Design Hub, "posts made to the page are noticeably higher quality than those made to other competing repost pages" is clearly one's opinion, which violates WP:NPOV.

In the paragraph about Apple iDesigner, saying their renders are beautiful and often more visually attractive is clearly one's opinion again, which violates WP:NPOV. Similar issues in the paragraph on Venya Geskin.

The whole section is written like an advertisement as it contains one's nonneutral opinion and the way external links to social media pages are presented. Thank you. Hayman30 (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Apple Community on Instagram

I noticed that the Apple Community is big on Instagram with accounts that report the latest Apple News. Maybe mention that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hesatter (talk • contribs) 23:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

AI-generated content

Hi there, I was looking at this page and noticed that this edit by user Itechinsights seems to be entirely AI-generated. The source provided is an advertisement to the home page of the user's own blog. Is there something that can be done about this, such as a removal of the content? PitConclave (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, many thanks for bringing that up, I've reverted. DFlhb (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

ScreenCastsOnline

Hi Jimthing, I noticed that you restored the "ScreenCastsOnline" section in Special:Diff/1193716850/1193780180. This section was deleted in July 2018 due to a lack of reliable independent sourcing, and the restored section currently does not cite any reliable independent sources. Are there any reliable secondary sources that would justify keeping this section in the article, per the verifiability policy? — Newslinger talk 00:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the section in Special:Diff/1195124172 as undue weight, as no independent reliable sources have been found to support the section content. — Newslinger talk 11:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Reinstated with past/present cites. Jimthing (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Almost all of the sources you added in Special:Diff/1195633263 are neither independent nor reliable:

1. Daring Fireball: Not reliable or independent. Not only is this posted on self-published blog, but it is also a sponsored post paid for by ScreenCastsOnline. The page is a literal advertisement, per the "This RSS sponsorship ran on Monday, 30 June 2008." message at the bottom and the blog's sponsorship page.
2. App Store: Not independent. This is ScreenCastsOnline's own listing.
3. MacObserver: Pending discussion at WP:RSN § 2016 podcast from The Mac Observer.
4. Devon Technologies: Not reliable or independent. Self-published company website promoting a ScreenCastsOnline video about the company's product.
5. Trustpilot: Not reliable. Trustpilot is a user-generated review website.
6. Podfeet: Not reliable or independent. Self-published blog written by someone who creates videos for ScreenCastsOnline, promoting her video.
7. Rosemary Orchard: Not reliable. Self-published blog.
8. LinkedIn. Not reliable. LinkedIn (RSP entry) is a user-generated social media network.
9. ScreenCastsOnline: Not independent. This is ScreenCastOnline's own website.
10. Rogue Amoeba: Not reliable or independent. Self-published company website promoting a ScreenCastsOnline video about the company's product.
11. Hookmark: Not reliable or independent. Self-published company website promoting a ScreenCastsOnline video about the company's product.

Out of these 11 citations that were added, 10 of them are clearly inappropriate for this article and should be removed. The last one is under discussion. Additionally, the app store links to the SCO Showcase and SCO Members apps are in violation of the external links guideline and policy against promotion. — Newslinger talk 07:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

#3 is an Apple news site (per that discussion); #5 is simply used for its sidebar explaining what SCO is (not the reviews); #4/10/11 merely show SCO did screencasts of their apps, unpaid and independent of the app companies themselves; #6/7 show these people's existence as screencast makers on the site. Jimthing (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Your explanations for sources #4–7 and #10–11 do not justify including them in this article, since these sources still fail the verifiability policy for the uses you are proposing. Additionally, sources #4 and #10–11 are not independent sources because they are blog posts from companies promoting screencasts about themselves, which involve conflicts of interest. Since you were the only other participant in the discussion for #3 (now archived at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 424 § 2016 podcast from The Mac Observer), the discussion concluded with no consensus as to whether the 2016 podcast is a reliable source for this use. Considering the verifiability policy and reliable sources guideline, I agree with Smuckola's removal of the coverage of ScreenCastsOnline from this article. — Newslinger talk 08:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Hi there. Just by glancing at this Talk page today, I now see this article has been a magnet of desperately unencyclopedic abuse in various incarnations for years. The subject is inherently a WP:FANCRUFT WP:PROMO magnet. I just now read this Talk page after I did my major improvement yesterday for your review. There's probably still a bunch that needs deletion, like the "MacIssues" consisting of just a pointless WP:TRIVIA list of acquisitions, nothing of which demonstrates WP:N. I'll rest and look again but you go ahead. I left some of the titles in bold in case those redirect here, but I didn't check most of them, so any that don't redirect here need to be non-bold per MOS:NOBOLD. It looks like the ScreenCastsOnline content that I had trimmed yesterday but hadn't deleted is cited by pure junk like weblogs and tutorials and ads, so I deleted that now. Is this the MacObserver thread you were talking about that nobody else answered?

I thank you so much for thoroughly stepping up here to parse the schlock, though it was truly a huge waste of your time. You really should have filed a WP:3RR warning on Jimthing for edit warring, for desperate WP:POV pushing of WP:FANCRUFT and non-WP:RS, and for needing to go find a fan site for this instead of an encyclopedia, which I just filed. — Smuckola(talk) 03:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my source evaluations. I've removed MacIssues in Special:Diff/1212329501 due to a lack of independent reliable sourcing and I'll take a closer look at the others later. — Newslinger talk 08:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)